warframefandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Corrosive Projection/@comment-112.202.114.204-20190416174103/@comment-25254386-20190417235208
"...damage types do not affect armor values, they get affected by them" yes, that's true. Damage types do not actually affect armor values, what I'm saying is that damage numbers are calculated as if they do. I thought I made that clear initially. Hence my earlier wording, "...you should say it reduces armor by 75% '''for that specific damage type". The armor is still there though, it doesn't go away. It doesn't matter what modifier you have, the damage is still going through all of it. Which is why, no, that first calc for the +100% modifier would '''not be correct. Again, that first calc is basically saying that we "ignored" 100% of it. The damage is not going through the armor anymore and as such we get no +100% to our damage from it. This is simply wrong. The armor is still there, and it will still provide a +100% bonus to damage. And I'm confused why would you even say the top is correct. You already know the top calc is using the incorrect equation, so why would it yield a correct result for an arbitrary case where the correct equation does not? Also, obviously a +100% modifier is not seen ingame, that was a hypothetical example to help illustrate my point. "Toxin damage ignores Proto Shields, and thus doesn't benefit from the +25% damage it would grant, even when the shield is still up" this just proves my point... If a damage type ignores a health class, then it won't receive the bonus from it. So why in the world does, say, Rad still receive +75% total damage even though it's ignoring 75% of the armor? Would it not make more sense for it to receive something closer to a + total damage bonus? Much like how Toxin ignores Shields and does not receive +25% damage, shouldn't the Rad not receive the full +75% damage either since, it too, is ignoring some armor? I mean, it's completely illogical for you to say these two cases should work so differently. Why is there no consistency? The only one assuming something works like nothing else in the game so far seems to be you. The +100% example is assuming exactly how it would work, hence using the same, proven, and correct equation for that case as you would any other real case. When I said "for that proportion of armor" I was referring to the first equation in both my fourth and fifth comments. More specifically, said equations are calculating with the "ignore" idea in mind. So, when you say Rad ignores 75% of armor you're saying 75% of your damage becomes unaffected by armor, and the remaining is affected by armor. So in the first part of the equation you'll see 25% of the damage being multiplied by health bonuses and armor mitigation, as well as the +75% armor bonus (that's what I mean). So only 25% of your damage gets the +75% bonus damage, however we clearly see that is simply not the case ingame. We see that because the damage isn't ignoring 75% the armor. It's going through all of the armor and calculating the damage mitigation as if the armor was reduced by 75%. These are two very different things and you should not use them so interchangeably. Reduction =/= Ignorance Anyway, this has gone waaaaay beyond the scope of OP's question. @OP: Ignore (hehe) all of this and just focus on the first two replies Ben and I made to you. @Ben: This shouldn't have devolved into technicalities and semantics as much as it did, and that's my fault. My biggest point, and what I originally wanted you to take away from this, was that the use of "ignore x% armor" could potentially confuse and mislead others into thinking about armor modifiers incorrectly. Just know that "ignore" can be dangerous when talking about armor and any other damage type besides True damage, and that many people will interpret it as those first equations (I know because I've seen it).